Please can you share a copy of the 2015 Contract Management Benchmarking Report as I am not able to locate this on the website?

• Seiersen Enterprises
•
2016-10-23 13:09:55

Charlotte,
I suggest you go to the Resources tab, a do a search on Benchmarking Reports. Remember to click sort by most recent. You will find a wealth of materials on any aspects of benchmarking. I have also sent you the 2015 Contract Management Benchmarking Report. Be sure to participate in the 2017 Benchmark study.

• IACCM
•
2016-11-08 16:35:57

Charlotte, building on Nick's reply, the study he has forwarded was issued early 2016 and provides a wide variety of benchmarks on process. This is supplemented by a series of reports that offer data on the issues that most often undermine the value achieved from contracts. These are part of the Ten Pitfalls series. Clearly, all benchmarks are norms or averages and if you have specific questions for a particular industry, geography, company size etc., you should ask us for the relevant break-out information.

When I work with my clients, assumptions are one of the more challenging aspects in respect to how to respond. Here are some pointers to consider
1) Why is the assumption being included. Every time you include an assumption you may be creating a barrier to winning the business so ensure you are including items that are relevant to the bid and accurately reflect your stance
2) Position the assumption in a positive manner. Far too often the assumption can be interpreted as benefiting the supplier benefit not the buyer. Try to read the assumption from the eyes of your customer. An incorrectly positioned assumption can be detrimental to your submission, yet a well positioned assumption can be seen as supporting the buyer and clarifying the requirement.

• IACCM
•
2016-08-18 12:25:12

I think it may be difficult for other companies to reply to your question in this form, particularly in respect of any benchmark. We will issue a note to our Aerospace and Defense 'community of interest' to ask whether any of those companies may be interested in participating in a benchmark study on this topic. If they are, we will need to formulate a more structured set of questions and approach. Please get in touch with me and we can discuss this further - tcummins@iaccm.com

• NetApp
•
2016-10-06 09:43:42

From your question it is not entirely clear to me what sort of assumptions you are talking about, but in general it is my experience that assumptions in proposals are either considered as a weakness (assuming means you are guessing, which doesn't come across well if the customer is actually asking expert advice on solving his problem), or an escape route (our proposal is absolutely binding unless something happens) .

One way to change this perception that often works for me, is by formulating assumptions as dependencies that will be tackled as part of your project/implementation plan. it will make them plausible and show that you are very aware of all the moving parts of an agreement that will need to be dealt with at some point.

Indeed. For example, there are consultants and researchers working on Contract visualizations. I happened to work on such developments for our company, and found it useful in governing the contractual activities of large and complex infrastructure proejcts.

It would be great to understand the situation and learn more about this position. It seems that you´re the Licensor and that you want to figure out how to negotiate with the Licensee.
If that is a correct summary of the scenario, you, as the Licensor, could probably provide the Licensee two options:
-Continue to offer their standard offer as an option. For illustration, let's assume the license would be priced at $1000 under that offer.
-Provide an alternate offer, which integrates the Licensee's requested language changes - but at an adjusted price. For illustration, let's assume that license fee would be priced at $1500.
This would mean that the requested language modification represents a $500 difference in the license fee, and the licensee needs to decide whether their requested changes to the language are worth the added cost.
The IACCM Maturity Model has identified the following practices as leading practices:
It is well understood that there is a link between terms and conditions and price / cost. This is evident in our contract development and negotiation process.
Regular analysis of the economic cost of terms and conditions occurs as part of strategic review.
Those who are responsible for terms and conditions are also responsible for their impact on price and cost.

Please, your company should consider undertaking the broader Maturity Model assessment, and pursue the establishment of these three capabilities in that undertaking. Feel free to contact me and/or any other member of the IACCM for further details about this assessment.

Best,
Pablo

• Neptune Marine Service Pty Ltd
•
2018-05-11 02:20:21

I tend to agree with Pablo that in most of the risks can be quantified objectively and the cost impact of the same can be added to the pricing.

Quote "Also, any limitation to direct damages is not acceptable. They are demanding 150% CAP for LOL" - I am not clear if they are rejection or proposing a new cap? Anyways, just for a note that the Cap on Liability needs to be clearly drafted from the perspective of the party seeking to rely on the cap.

Also, It is not clear from your question that the contract has clarity on the hold harmless on the consequential, loss of profit and indirect losses (keeping in mind that the loss of profit and other losses in some jurisdictions can be considered as a direct loss).